Superbowl Or Bust For 2018

[biletnikoff]

Saints?  SB or bust? 

The Saints are a bust.They can't  even win games where every advantage was had with little time on clock, obviously. 

 

 

 

[Spartica4Real]

The Saints are only SB or bust because of Brees. The rest of the team is young and we're sitting in a solid position cap space wise, don't have that much (after spending this year) but we're not in cap trouble. I voted the Saints in the poll but after thinking about it I would choose the Vikings. While obviously I want the Saints to win one more before Brees retires, he already got one which seems to me to make it less "SB or bust" than the Vikings, and I think overall we're better set up for the future, IF we are able to get a good QB after Brees. 

[vikingsrule]

4 hours ago, DoleINGout said:

The Vikings have to prioritize re-signing Anthony Barr in my opinion.

That's probably a fair assessment. Hard to find guys that big and athletic. I'd argue that Diggs and Richardson (if he returns to NYJ form) also need to be prioritized. 

That leaves Kendricks and Hunter as potential odd men out. The draft will be telling in terms of which direction the Vikes go. The Vikes only have one starting need at RG/RT (depends on where Remmers settles into). The rest of MNs draft picks will fill depth needs.

[stl4life07]

What I fear about the Saints is they pretty much kept the same roster. I know they are young so a lot of the guys on the roster can and should take that next step, but either you are making moves to improve or you are starting over. To me staying put is almost like taking a step back. The Eagles, Rams, Vikings, Packers all have made strides this offseason to improve. It wouldn’t shock me if the Saints go from division winners to fighting for a WC spot. Not only is the NFCS is tough but the NFC has gotten tougher.

[game3525]

34 minutes ago, stl4life07 said:

What I fear about the Saints is they pretty much kept the same roster. I know they are young so a lot of the guys on the roster can and should take that next step, but either you are making moves to improve or you are starting over. To me staying put is almost like taking a step back. The Eagles, Rams, Vikings, Packers all have made strides this offseason to improve. It wouldn’t shock me if the Saints go from division winners to fighting for a WC spot. Not only is the NFCS is tough but the NFC has gotten tougher.

Meh, these off-season "arm races" generally get overblown. 

The Saints handled free agency just fine. They made some smart low-key signings to a roster that is already one of the most complete rosters in the NFL. 

[Jlowe22]

1 hour ago, stl4life07 said:

 It wouldn’t shock me if the Saints go from division winners to fighting for a WC spot. Not only is the NFCS is tough but the NFC has gotten tougher.

It wouldn't surprise me either, but only because the conference is so strong.  I think we're in good shape personnel-wise.  

[stl4life07]

34 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

It wouldn't surprise me either, but only because the conference is so strong.  I think we're in good shape personnel-wise.  

I agree and if you noticed the Saints were involved in trying to get Graham then Suh. They also tried to push for Nelson then wanted to give a contract offer for Fuller but he didn’t sign with them he signed with the Packers then the Bears matched it. The Saints then went and got Robinson. So the Saints know as well that they can’t stand put with everyone around them in the NFC getting stronger after a strong season last year from some of the NFC teams. But again the Saints will be good personnel wise they will be right there I’m just saying while we see teams like the Rams, Eagles, and Vikings getting even more stronger  the Saints are still basically the same team from last year. 

[stl4life07]

1 hour ago, game3525 said:

Meh, these off-season "arm races" generally get overblown. 

The Saints handled free agency just fine. They made some smart low-key signings to a roster that is already one of the most complete rosters in the NFL. 

I don’t think it’s overblown. Teams are positioning themselves. That’s not even mentioning teams that had down seasons like the Cowboys and Packers who should be better and teams like the Niners and Bears who should improve. I think it’s not smart to just be ok with basically the same roster from the previous year. The Saints were agressive in the offseason trying to get players like Graham, Suh, Fuller, Nelson but they struck out on all of them. That’s how it goes sometimes. 

[Jlowe22]

2 minutes ago, stl4life07 said:

I agree and if you noticed the Saints were involved in trying to get Graham then Suh. They also tried to push for Nelson then wanted to give a contract offer for Fuller but he didn’t sign with them he signed with the Packers then the Bears matched it. The Saints then went and got Robinson. So the Saints know as well that they can’t stand put with everyone around them in the NFC getting stronger after a strong season last year from some of the NFC teams. But again the Saints will be good personnel wise they will be right there I’m just saying while we see teams like the Rams, Eagles, and Vikings getting even more stronger  the Saints are still basically the same team from last year. 

Well it was never realistic that we were gonna sign all of those guys, and I'm satisfied with what we did achieve.  On paper, the defense is improved from last year(which was already significantly improved from the all time garbage it was), and the offense will be strong as ever assuming no significant Brees decline.  That's enough to be serious competitors in the NFC.  But the competition is certainly stiff, and there will probably be some strong teams miss out on the playoffs.  We could certainly be one of those teams, but so could anyone else. 

Offensively, we've been one of the most consistent teams in the NFC, and assuming status quo, we don't necessarily need to sign any big name offensive free agents to be a top 5ish unit. That doesn't mean ignore offense, but we can afford to focus on the defense, and I feel like we have done that.  If Brees declines to garbage, we're screwed anyway, and Jimmy Graham and Jordy Nelson won't change that.

Saints also had one of the best drafts in the league last year(if not THE best), and all of those guys will be expected to develop some more.  So I feel like on paper, we should be as big a threat as anyone else, ignoring random, uncontrollable unknowns, like all of our starters getting hurt in training camp.

I'm never 100% satisfied until we have a pro bowl roster, but that's not realistic, and I feel like we've done enough to remain an NFC contender, even if we didn't land the big names.

 

 

 

[TXsteeler]

2 hours ago, Jlowe22 said:

I don't think the Saints are the answer to the poll, but depending on how you define "cusp of winning", I mean, they were a miracle play away from the NFCCG last year.  :The Steelers weren't any closer to the AFCCG.  The Steelers have won plenty of Superbowls, many more than the Saints, and two in this millennium.  Both Ben and Brees are close to retirement(Brees arguably closer, as I think it will be a miracle if he actually plays at a high level for two more years.)  Bell may leave after 2018, but Saints may lose some important pieces as well.

If Steelers are under pressure to win before they lose key players, Saints are as well.  Steelers probably do have the better chance though, if for no other reason than the AFC being the weaker conference.

 

The Steelers have gone 13-3, 11-5, 10-6, and 11-5 going back over the last 4 seasons, making it to the playoffs every year, the divisional round the last 3 years, and making the championship game 2 years ago.

The saints have gone 11-5 and 7-9 three times in a row during the same span, so that's how I define "cusp of winning", on a year to year basis there's no difference buy I'm thinking about trends.

And yes, a SB for Pittsburgh the franchise doesn't mean nearly as much as it does for New Orleans the franchise, but for the current iterations of the teams?

I'm pretty sure the only player left on our team from 08 is Ben, and afaik none of our other players have won a SB anywhere else. I would assume the situations with the saints is pretty similar except Ben has two rings and Brees has one. Both coaches only have one as well.

As far as Brees falling off soon/er than Ben, yes he is 39, but he, along with Brady, has shown no sign of aging as far as I can tell. I don't watch many saints games but looking at his stats last year, he just set the record for completion % in a season (I didn't know that, wow!), a career low int %, highest yards per attempt since 202, highest rating since 2013, and lowest sack % since 2011. Outside of touchdowns and bulk yards he probably had his best season since 2011.

Ben's completion % was the lowest it's been since 2013, his TD and int%s are slightly dipping over the past few seasons except for 2015 which was a very bad year and 2014 which was a very good year, his yards per attempt are slightly below average for him recently, and his rating has gone down for the third straight year. His sack % is down though which is really good because he has been sacked nearly 100 times more than drew Brees across his whole career, and Ben is currently tied for the 5th most sacked QB of all time. As an aside, 2 more years of his career low (17 from 2 years ago) would put him just a handful behind Elway for third, 2 more of his second least ever in a season (20 from last year) puts him one over Elway and 8 behind Favre.

I expect Brees to play better than Ben for the rest of their careers but I don't expect either of them to play past 2020 and would probably bet on only 2 more seasons for either of them barring injury or winning next year.

As far as losing key players, again I'll be honest I don't know what players NO is about to lose in 2 to 3 years, I just know Pittsburgh is about to lose a lot.

[Jlowe22]

3 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

The Steelers have gone 13-3, 11-5, 10-6, and 11-5 going back over the last 4 seasons, making it to the playoffs every year, the divisional round the last 3 years, and making the championship game 2 years ago.

The saints have gone 11-5 and 7-9 three times in a row during the same span, so that's how I define "cusp of winning", on a year to year basis there's no difference buy I'm thinking about trends.

And yes, a SB for Pittsburgh the franchise doesn't mean nearly as much as it does for New Orleans the franchise, but for the current iterations of the teams?

I'm pretty sure the only player left on our team from 08 is Ben, and afaik none of our other players have won a SB anywhere else. I would assume the situations with the saints is pretty similar except Ben has two rings and Brees has one. Both coaches only have one as well.

As far as Brees falling off soon/er than Ben, yes he is 39, but he, along with Brady, has shown no sign of aging as far as I can tell. I don't watch many saints games but looking at his stats last year, he just set the record for completion % in a season (I didn't know that, wow!), a career low int %, highest yards per attempt since 202, highest rating since 2013, and lowest sack % since 2011. Outside of touchdowns and bulk yards he probably had his best season since 2011.

Ben's completion % was the lowest it's been since 2013, his TD and int%s are slightly dipping over the past few seasons except for 2015 which was a very bad year and 2014 which was a very good year, his yards per attempt are slightly below average for him recently, and his rating has gone down for the third straight year. His sack % is down though which is really good because he has been sacked nearly 100 times more than drew Brees across his whole career, and Ben is currently tied for the 5th most sacked QB of all time. As an aside, 2 more years of his career low (17 from 2 years ago) would put him just a handful behind Elway for third, 2 more of his second least ever in a season (20 from last year) puts him one over Elway and 8 behind Favre.

I expect Brees to play better than Ben for the rest of their careers but I don't expect either of them to play past 2020 and would probably bet on only 2 more seasons for either of them barring injury or winning next year.

As far as losing key players, again I'll be honest I don't know what players NO is about to lose in 2 to 3 years, I just know Pittsburgh is about to lose a lot.

My point was that while the situations aren't exact, they are similar in the sense that both teams can compete for the conference, and both teams have franchise QBs that are in the twilight of their careers, and both teams have won superbowls semi-recently.  The option for both teams is either win a superbowl within the next 1-2 years, or start over the search for a franchise QB, which is essentially a rebuild even if the rest of the team is relatively young.  If the search takes several years(if you're not unlucky) your young team won't be young anymore.  If you're really unlucky, you may go decades without another window opening.  If you're really lucky, maybe you have Aaron Rodgers on the bench, but that's not something you can bank on.

I would say neither team is under as much pressure as a team like the Vikings, who have a legitimate window now, and have never won a superbowl.  But both teams have a window with their QBs that will be closing soon, 

[JMG5]

If you're paying your QB a lot of money then it's Superbowl or bust.

[stl4life07]

55 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

Well it was never realistic that we were gonna sign all of those guys, and I'm satisfied with what we did achieve.  On paper, the defense is improved from last year(which was already significantly improved from the all time garbage it was), and the offense will be strong as ever assuming no significant Brees decline.  That's enough to be serious competitors in the NFC.  But the competition is certainly stiff, and there will probably be some strong teams miss out on the playoffs.  We could certainly be one of those teams, but so could anyone else. 

Offensively, we've been one of the most consistent teams in the NFC, and assuming status quo, we don't necessarily need to sign any big name offensive free agents to be a top 5ish unit. That doesn't mean ignore offense, but we can afford to focus on the defense, and I feel like we have done that.  If Brees declines to garbage, we're screwed anyway, and Jimmy Graham and Jordy Nelson won't change that.

Saints also had one of the best drafts in the league last year(if not THE best), and all of those guys will be expected to develop some more.  So I feel like on paper, we should be as big a threat as anyone else, ignoring random, uncontrollable unknowns, like all of our starters getting hurt in training camp.

I'm never 100% satisfied until we have a pro bowl roster, but that's not realistic, and I feel like we've done enough to remain an NFC contender, even if we didn't land the big names.

 

 

 

I agree. I didn’t think the Saints could land all those guys I mentioned but I certainly wanted the Saints to bring back Graham. I UNDERSTOOD why they didn’t want to pay him when he was there previously but things are different now. But that’s just me because I never bought into the Saints signing Fleener a few seasons ago and outside of Watson who they just brought back, the Saints hasn’t replaced the production Graham had at TE.

[Jlowe22]

15 minutes ago, stl4life07 said:

I agree. I didn’t think the Saints could land all those guys I mentioned but I certainly wanted the Saints to bring back Graham. I UNDERSTOOD why they didn’t want to pay him when he was there previously but things are different now. But that’s just me because I never bought into the Saints signing Fleener a few seasons ago and outside of Watson who they just brought back, the Saints hasn’t replaced the production Graham had at TE.

TE is the one weakness we did have on offense, specifically receiving TE, and that's the biggest disappointment of the offseason so far.  Graham has cons to go along with the pros, but all in all he would have been a significant red zone upgrade.  I don't think missing out on him is enough to hurt our chances of winning significantly though, although it would have almost certainly inflated Drew Brees stat line.

[Kiltman]

Saints are fine, adding big major pieces to get your team to the top faster doesn't always work...in fact it often doesn't equal a ring.
Look at like Kearse and TO coming to the Eagles in 04,  Randy Moss not getting get the Pats a ring. And tons of other examples every year.
Winning a super bowl is tough no matter what, you just need things to go your way.

For instance I think the Saints were the biggest threat to the Eagles...that miracle doesn't happen and I think the game at the Linc is must tougher matchup wise.
They are a good team, and have a solid short at it again this year. If they can improve consistency on O and just get better in a second year on that D, there really is no reason to doubt them going into any matchup. Yea they didn't get Graham or Suh...but it's not a huge deal. They signed some solid role players like Patrick Robinson, Davis, Coleman. And most importantly they retained Brees